Confirmed with Link: Flyers acquire Cam Talbot for Anthony Stolarz

Hollywood Cannon

I'm Away From My Desk
Jul 17, 2007
86,495
156,926
South Jersey
Also a lot of people seem to ignore that Talbot will be a free agent in July. We really ****ing need him now?

I'm not trying to say Stolarz is a lock to be the next Rinne but the trade just seems dumb to me.

Stolarz is going to be a Free Agent in July.

A tandem of Hart/Stolarz isn’t something I want when shit hits the fan.

Gives the organization a chance to look at Talbot for next few months. If it works, you re-sign him. If it doesn’t, you let him walk and you’re in same position you were with Stolarz.
 

Rebels57

Former Flyers fan
Sponsor
Sep 28, 2014
76,697
123,242
Side bet nhl numbers next year, I get Talbot you get Stolie.

Stolie I have doubts wont even be in the nhl

I think it's more likely that Stolarz steals the starters job from Koskinen than it is he is out of the NHL. Not that he'd make for a very good #1, but I can see it happening there.
 

CutOnDime97

Too Showman
Mar 29, 2008
15,589
9,786
Stolarz is going to be a Free Agent in July.

A tandem of Hart/Stolarz isn’t something I want when **** hits the fan.

Gives the organization a chance to look at Talbot for next few months. If it works, you re-sign him. If it doesn’t, you let him walk and you’re in same position you were with Stolarz.
Yeah that is fair, however I don't think it is fair to write off Stolarz as a non prospect. Think there is still some upside with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rebels57

Garbage Goal

Registered User
Apr 1, 2009
22,699
4,591
I’m just gonna say that I had hoped the Flyers were making a safe, smart bet at goalie for once next year. Instead of hinging everything on a sophomore people might get the book on and a 32 year old guy coming off 98 starts with trash numbers. Including re-signing said guy based on a 10 to 15 game sample size in the post deadline part of the season where teams start to know if they’re playoff bound or not.

This could work out really well. Pretty real chance it works out catastrophically though if Hart regresses, gets injured, or turns out not to be the savior everyone assumes.
 

Pantokrator

Who's the clown?
Jan 27, 2004
6,151
1,323
Semmes, Alabama
I actually like the idea of Talbot as backup. I just think we could have gotten more. My irritation just boils down to not using assets wisely. Edmonton was happy to dump Talbot's salary. They were needing to get rid of his salary in order to get their cap under control. There was no pressure on us. So in those circumstances, the team in the bind usually has to sweeten the pot. That's all.
 

Hollywood Cannon

I'm Away From My Desk
Jul 17, 2007
86,495
156,926
South Jersey
I’m just gonna say that I had hoped the Flyers were making a safe, smart bet at goalie for once next year. Instead of hinging everything on a sophomore people might get the book on and a 32 year old guy coming off 98 starts with trash numbers. Including re-signing said guy based on a 10 to 15 game sample size in the post deadline part of the season where teams start to know if they’re playoff bound or not.

This could work out really well. Pretty real chance it works out catastrophically though if Hart regresses, gets injured, or turns out not to be the savior everyone assumes.

How could trading Anthony Stolarz (UFA) for Cam Talbot (UFA) possibly ever result in catastrophe?

If Hart isn’t the savior, this trade wasn’t the reason it happens.
 

Striiker

Earthquake Survivor
Jun 2, 2013
89,706
155,795
Pennsylvania
The context for this has already been posted. Early in the season when Stolarz was still fresh off his lost season, not once he actually played NHL games this year.
Right, but playing games didn’t really help his case or boost much value. As I’ve posted a few times now, until his TWO good games, he had a .880 sv%. It’s not as if playing games made a difference... if anything it gave more reason to doubt.
 

duffy9748

Registered User
Nov 26, 2007
4,842
688
Wouldn’t say I love it but there’s no reason to really dislike it. Stolarz didn’t have any value moving forward IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Madrigal

ponder719

Haute Couturier
Jul 2, 2013
6,599
8,634
Philadelphia, PA
I still feel like we should have gotten something beyond just Talbot. Hell, I'd have been satisfied with a conditional pick in 2020 that reverts back to Edmonton if we sign Talbot for next year; that way, if he sucks and we let him go, we get a pick down the line for Stolarz. That way, at least we'd definitely get something either way.
 

Garbage Goal

Registered User
Apr 1, 2009
22,699
4,591
How could trading Anthony Stolarz (UFA) for Cam Talbot (UFA) possibly ever result in catastrophe?

If Hart isn’t the savior, this trade wasn’t the reason it happens.

In that quote, specifically, I didn’t even mention Stolarz. Just that I would hope for a smarter and safer plan than Hart-Talbot and risking another goaltending carnival.

So I’m not sure what you’re on about. Although, while I didn’t mention it, a re-signed Stolarz is probably going to be easier to call up and send down than a vet on a UFA contract who happens to be Hart’s friend.
 

Van Buren Boy

--------------------
Aug 18, 2006
1,541
700
I'm not 100% sold on Talbot signing here to be a backup. I'm not saying i wouldn't want it, i just doubt he does.
 

Magua

Entirely Palatable Product
Apr 25, 2016
37,546
155,683
Huron of the Lakes
If the Flyers management/scouting team identified Talbot as a goalie capable of a rebound, understanding what tweaks need to be made, and they place some value on that potential mixed with his skill-set.......I can at least shrug and hope so too. And I'm sure that was where their heads were mainly at.

If they acquired him emphasizing some mentor relationship or anything having to do with Hart......that's f***ing awful logic. I don't know why that's perceived as a hypothetical positive. Backups know their role, and they're all pretty much good teammates. Elliott, Stolarz -- people rave about their attitudes as well. There's nothing magical about Talbot's mentorship abilities. He's a goalie; is he good or not to play 25 games next year should be factors 1-50. Don't let the emotional status of players dictate your moves. I wonder how many Flyers teammates would want Simmonds re-signed to a 6 year deal.....
 

Philly Fanatik

"They're going home!"
Jun 24, 2017
2,516
1,774
Clarenville,NL,Canada
DB25602D-98C0-4E5C-9048-FADEF62E58B6.gif
The state of mind of the Philadelphia Flyers goaltending CRAZY 8’s...
 

BernieParent

In misery of redwings of suckage for a long time
Mar 13, 2009
24,670
44,296
Chasm of Sar (north of Montreal, Qc)
Right, but playing games didn’t really help his case or boost much value. As I’ve posted a few times now, until his TWO good games, he had a .880 sv%. It’s not as if playing games made a difference... if anything it gave more reason to doubt.

Thanks for your response, Striiker. Then we can agree to dismiss Stolarz's waivers as a supporting argument that he isn't a good goalie. His numbers overall are mediocre, albeit with no small contribution of Hakstol's misuse. But the wider picture is that Stolarz didn't light the team on fire; I accept that premise and can't fully refute it. He was (on a very small sample size) trending upward. Talbot on a much larger sample size has looked bad this season. We are going into the unknown with either one. Again, there is a decent chance that Talbot gets his legs under himself with a new and (somewhat) better team and we can all rejoice if that comes to pass. I tried to detail the points of this transaction that irk me and they go beyond the expected level of Talbot's play.

I'll exit this thread (for now) since I have things to prepare for tomorrow.
 

baudib1

Registered User
Apr 12, 2016
8,136
11,633
Las Vegas
It only took us like 33 years to have two homegrown goalies playing well. Can't have that, must overpay for horrible veteran.

I'd rather re-sign Elliott than Talbot.
 

Dumpster Flyers

Registered User
Jun 21, 2006
5,932
1,233
Smart move by the Flyers. Fletcher probably decided he's going to waive Stolarz when Elliott comes back, but there's a chance Talbot returns to form. Maybe it doesn't work out, but nothing's lost.
 

Striiker

Earthquake Survivor
Jun 2, 2013
89,706
155,795
Pennsylvania
Thanks for your response, Striiker. Then we can agree to dismiss Stolarz's waivers as a supporting argument that he isn't a good goalie. His numbers overall are mediocre, albeit with no small contribution of Hakstol's misuse. But the wider picture is that Stolarz didn't light the team on fire; I accept that premise and can't fully refute it. He was (on a very small sample size) trending upward. Talbot on a much larger sample size has looked bad this season. We are going into the unknown with either one. Again, there is a decent chance that Talbot gets his legs under himself with a new and (somewhat) better team and we can all rejoice if that comes to pass. I tried to detail the points of this transaction that irk me and they go beyond the expected level of Talbot's play.

I'll exit this thread (for now) since I have things to prepare for tomorrow.

Well I wasn't saying that going through waivers means he's isn't a good goalie. I was saying it shows he isn't a valuable goalie, which is important in judging this trade.

And I agree, we're going into the unknown either way, but I'm in favor of this because I'd personally bet on Talbot being better than Stolarz next year. If someone would rather bet on Stolarz then I can understand why they'd dislike the trade, and that's a perfectly valid opinion to have, even though I obviously disagree with it.

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to say everyone should love this trade or that people are wrong for disagreeing with it, I'm just pointing out reasons why it's not a horrible trade and why it can be viewed favorably by myself and others. This is the type of thing that comes down to opinion and viewpoint, not fact. The only thing I’m against is the magnitude of the hate this trade has received because I think it’s excessive.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad